Image: Photograph by Kevin Van Aelst
In Brief
- Tobacco plants accumulate small concentrations of polonium 210, a radioactive isotope that mostly originates from natural radioactivity in fertilizers.
- Smokers inhale the polonium, which settles in “hot spots” in the lungs and can cause cancer. Its effects may lead to thousands of deaths a year in the U.S. alone.
- The tobacco industry has known for decades how to virtually eliminate the polonium from cigarette smoke but kept its knowledge secret and failed to act.
- The Food and Drug Administration now has the authority to regulate tobacco and could begin to use it by forcing manufacturers to reduce polonium content.
More In This Article
In November 2006 former KGB operative Alexander Litvinenko died in a London hospital in what had all the hallmarks of a cold war–style assassination. Despite the intrigue surrounding Litvinenko’s death, the poison that killed him, a rare radioactive isotope called polonium 210, is far more widespread than many of us realize: people worldwide smoke almost six trillion cigarettes a year, and each one delivers a small amount of polonium 210 to the lungs. Puff by puff, the poison builds up to the equivalent radiation dosage of 300 chest x-rays a year for a person who smokes one and a half packs a day.
Although polonium may not be the primary carcinogen in cigarette smoke, it may nonetheless cause thousands of deaths a year in the U.S. alone. And what sets polonium apart is that these deaths could be avoided with simple measures. The tobacco industry has known about polonium in cigarettes for nearly 50 years. By searching through internal tobacco industry documents, I have discovered that manufacturers even devised processes that would dramatically cut down the isotope’s concentrations in cigarette smoke. But Big Tobacco consciously decided to do nothing and to keep its research secret. In consequence, cigarettes still contain as much polonium today as they did half a century ago.
This article was originally published with the title Radioactive Smoke.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentWhoa, smoking, yea, knew that was dangerous...But what else is this fertilizer used in? How much Polonium am I getting from my food? Who covered that up???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 'Supplemental Material' link is broke. I hope there's more evidence there than just the author's testimonial in the article text...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is pretty much all of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.briannarego.com%2FRegoIsis2009.pdf&rct=j&q=Memo%20to%20Paul%20Eichorn%20about%20polonium%20results&ei=OZ0kTdKgG4KClAfv9fCfAQ&usg=AFQjCNEwFW4PiSjdYiVjXEOsZtWetpen-g&sig2=duAvd4TNqJ2f-nleS2KHQQ&cad=rja
I have to be honest, this isn't news. I've known about this since 2008 or so when I came across a piece written in the AJPH. I'm glad it's being brought up again though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/1643?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=muggli&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Thanks. Seems to be a well written report, but as you say, not at all surprising since it has been pretty much known for decades that the tobacco industry was a conspiracy against public health, as suspected before that. We just preferred to keep smoking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be smoking still if RJ Reynolds hadn't, in late 2009, quit making my superior but expensive export/special order only Benson & Hedges Kings (with the 'special' filter) that were never advertised. Did you ever see, smell or taste what gets exchanged between the smoker's saliva and the squished, moistened soft filter of other filter cigarettes? It's disgusting! I wouldn't smoke any of them, and quit after 45 years.
As the author wrties: "Although polonium may not be the primary carcinogen in cigarette smoke...", this is any interesting variation of old news.
As you pointed out, the article "In Brief" sidebar states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Tobacco plants accumulate small concentrations of polonium 210, a radioactive isotope that mostly originates from natural radioactivity in fertilizers."
It does not point out that the source article (see jtizzi's link) does outline the industry sponsored research conducted over more than a decade that seems to generally indicate:
- The primary fertilizer used containing radioactive elements is high in phosphates.
- The radioactive mineral content of phosphate rocks varies geographically.
- Other radioactive elements enter the tobacco plant from the soil in which they're grown.
- The various radioactive minerals accumulating in the tobacco plants from various sources varies geographically.
- The polonium 210 is a decay product of iron 210, which has a half life of 20 years.
- Incineration products inhaled from smoking containing various radioactive minerals accumulate in the crannies of branches within the lung.
Over many years of smoking, accumulated radioactive minerals decay into isotopes, including the polonium 210.
I'd guess that trace radioactive elements contained in ingested food do not follow the same processes and may be somewhat less dangerous, but it would seem to me that they could accumulate, primarily in the liver and kidneys. A more careful study of the report might provide better information.
Interesting. The report indicates that the tobacco industry began investigating the polonium issue back in 1964, about the time I began smoking...
Where in the "scientific" language does the word "may" fit in? Looks like some one is fishing for a grant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
The article states: "Still, conservative estimates based on risk from radiation exposure suggest that polonium 210 may be responsible for 2 percent of smoke-induced lung cancers, and thus save several thousand deaths in the U.S. alone."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am ambivalent on the question of whether tobacco companies should remove polonium. On one hand, it becomes an added expense in producing cigarettes, thus lowering tobacco profits or raising cigarette costs (both good things), as well as reducing tobacco-caused morbidity and mortality by 2%.
However, prominently stating that cigarette smoke is radioactive would do more to discourage smoking, protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke, and thus be far more effective in reducing cigarette-caused disease and death.
I agree. As the article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Although polonium may not be the primary carcinogen in cigarette smoke, it may nonetheless cause thousands of deaths a year in the U.S. alone."
I don't know how many total annual deaths are attributed to smoking, but I doubt that removing polonium now (it should have been done >40 years ago) would make cigarette smoking significantly safer. Smokers have been adequately informed that they are risking horrible illness and death by smoking.
I'd be more concerned that radioactive decay products may be found in food and ingested by truly innocent and ignorant victims. If the incidence of conditions perhaps such as colorectal cancer are possibly being aggravated by radioactive isotopes decayed from elements in food accumulated in the body over many years, the public health impact could be enormous.
may i suggest that one read more scientific literature to familiarize oneself with the concepts of probability, then perhaps, one might be able to get a handle on what "may" may mean, in the context of a scientific paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis might even improve one's understanding of what 'may' might mean when stumbled across in other forms of literature, although it may lead to further consternation when considering whether April showers bring may flowers.
"sounds like someone who never got a grant"
may i suggest that one read more scientific literature to familiarize oneself with the concepts of probability, then perhaps, one might be able to get a handle on what "may" may mean, in the context of a scientific paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis might even improve one's understanding of what 'may' might mean when stumbled across in other forms of literature, although it may lead to further consternation when considering whether April showers bring may flowers.
"sounds like someone who never got a grant"
apologies for double posting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But as a memo from R. J. Reynolds put it, 'Removal of these materials would have no commercial advantage.'"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the same reaction now as I had years ago when I first read this quote. I have never seen a more stunning example of the absence of even a trace of morality from corporate America. Why were these executives not prosecuted for reckless endangerment?
Can there be any more graphic proof that corporations must be regulated heavily? I mean, besides slavery. And Chromium 6. And toxic assets. And . . .
In reply to jtdwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know how many total annual deaths are attributed to smoking, but I doubt that removing polonium now (it should have been done >40 years ago) would make cigarette smoking significantly safer. Smokers have been adequately informed that they are risking horrible illness and death by smoking."
"I'd be more concerned that radioactive decay products may be found in food and ingested by truly innocent and ignorant victims."
Many children in the US still take up smoking at an early age while they are still poorly informed, impulsive, and subject to tremendous social pressures, and I consider them to be truly innocent and ignorant victims. There are billions of people overseas who are not as well informed as US citizens are, and I consider them to be truly innocent and ignorant victims, sometimes victims of their own governments that are the main distributors.
Perhaps you are implying that any adult who takes up smoking knowing the dangers is not truly innocent. You should know that the vast majority of smokers took it up while they were still minors, and then found that it is hard to kick the most addictive drug known to man.
So, jtdwyer, how many people would have to die every year before removing the polonium would make smoking "significantly safer"? Just in the US, 400,000 people die of smoking every year. (Deaths due to the polonium alone may be about 2% of that, or 8,000). That's like having a 9/11 attack more than twice a week, except that instead of being motivated by religious beliefs or anger, they would be motivated by cold-blooded profit. (Memo from R. J. Reynolds: "Removal of these materials would have no commercial advantage.") I'm not entirely sure which is worse.
If you define a religion as a system of morality and ethics, then it is clear that the state religion in the US is capitalism. The large corporations determine what is lawful, permissible, moral and ethical through their lobbying of Congress. Whatever behavior is not illegal, or has a loophole, or we can get away with, or the penalty is lenient enough, is permissible. And if it is permissible, it is moral. If it makes money for the corporation it may even be mandatory, because obligations to shareholders' profits come before harm to the community. So our official state-sanctioned religious beliefs let R. J. Reynolds off without even a warning.
Until now, that is, since the FDA can start regulating tobacco. Let's see how long that lasts. After all, that would be against our religious beliefs.
Sorry about the rant.
I will echo the comments of several people above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Radioactive Smoke" article omits the obvious question of radioactive residues (from mined phosphate fertilizers) in food crops, and other consumer crops, such as wood and fiber. The second question is the exposure hazard from such contamination (if present).
It seems to me that these questions are an urgent order of business for the (USA) FDA and perhaps EPA, and I am looking forward to properly conducted scientific research on these questions.
Questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the tobacco plant preferentially sequester Po 210, as compared to other plants, or is this what any plant would do, with the same fertiliser?
Does the processing of tobacco into cigarettes concentrate Po 210 significantly compared to commercial processing of other plants?
Which of these processes causes cigarettes to contain harmful amounts of Po 210? What other plants are known to do this?
Thank you for your interest in this article. What makes polonium dangerous in tobacco and not in, say, broccoli, is that polonium-210 is volatile above 500° C, well below the temperature of a burning cigarette (about 600° to 800° C), which allows it to adhere strongly to the smoke particles and to gain direct access to the lung. What's more, according to a fact sheet from Argonne National Laboratory, the cancer risk from inhaling polonium-210 is about six times greater than the risk from ingesting it, a determination that highlights the danger of the presence of polonium-210 in tobacco.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this